...just catching up, folks. Another installment coming soon.
Meetings / Seminars
- 5/14-16 – CCAR’s 6th Annual Meeting – all you could ever want to know about CCAR. Summaries and presentations here
---CCAR explains Climate Action Reserve. Screenshots and step-by-step how-to incl in ppt
---Nice ppt from PG&E about utility users’ vol C offset program (“by 12/2009, PG&E will contract for at least 1.5 million tons”). This is the program that had a recent RFP out (7/2) for CCAR-standard projects.
- 6/9-6/10 - 12th Global Katoomba Meeting – 6/9 and 6/10 summaries below
- 6/11-6/12 - Private Katoomba Meeting on the Chesapeake Bay – day summaries below
- 6/2008, Brazil - 12th Internat Congress on Env Law of IUCN – focused on trends in imple of PES in Americas (best practices, legal/instit frameworks). Contact: Rodrigo Martinez usdecons9(“at”)oas.org (Organiz of Amer States’ Dept of Sust Dev).
Projects
- Market-based CIG Grants (Ches Bay grants, national grants)
---Ches Nutrient Neutral Fund (Ches Bay Foundation)
---the Bay Bank (Pinchot Institute)
---Gopher Tortoise Habitat Credit Bank in GA and AL (Amer Forest Foundation)
---Mkt-based rangeland restor & crit w’life hab in Sagebrush (Sagebrush Foundation et al)
---PES in FL ranchlands, from pilot to program operation (WWF)
---C Credit mkt infra (Couer d’Alene Tribe)
---Mkt-based incen to reduce sedi from ag lands, etc. (Kansas St U)
---Develop/use a modified NTT tool for WQT (Tarleton St U, MD)
---Mkt infra for WQT/etc in Upper Miss (Minnesota River Basin, Joint Powers Board)
---Facilitating NIFP to C offset mkts (George McKinley)
- WQT Funding – EPA’s Targeted Watershed Grants app is due (w/ state governor approval) by Sept. 9. RFP is here
- Corp Sustain – World Bus Council on Sust Dev’s class of 2008 Future Leaders Team are focusing on ecosystem services & how bus depend on; how to ID opp’s and miti risks; to use WRI’s Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) methodology. Contact: Katherine Madden, WBCSD madden("at")wbcsd.org
News
- C and Institutions – May 2008 USDA Forest Service memo guides FS leaders re: reforestation/C projects. Says FS is not currently involved in any selling/trading of C offsets (C *credit* projects – distinction here is using for CCX or future regulations). FS only has 3 current C *offset* projects with National Forest Foundation, consider these as demo projects for using forest mngt in a CC miti strategy (new projects can only be approved on case-by-case basis). FS can partner with folks who advertise *general* C claims or benefits from donations for reforestation but these can’t be advertised like “offset your GHG” or ”go C neutral”.
- C – PG&E offsets Dem party nat convention w/offsets from Garcia River Forest (CF project)
- All things C - Ecosystem V-Carbon News (6/11)
---Lieberman-Warner cap & trade bill didn’t get enough votes
---1st project registered/verified under CA Forest Protocols, Pacific Forest Trust’s Van Eck forest in Humboldt Co. CA, offering VERs
---2 CA bills proposed to regulate OTC C
- CC – USDA Forest Service factsheet “Climate Change and Water: Perspectives from the Forest Service”
- Instit – Doug Lashley (CEO Greenvest) op-ed: support > efficient multi-cred mkt in Ches Bay
- Env Mkts –DoD-contracted(?) 2007 doc by Idaho Nat’l Lab – says DoD will likely be largest buyer/seller of wq credits; screenshots of hypothetical multi-cred mkt
- Env Mkt info – new blog related to env markets by EcoAsset Markets
- Tools – a little 411 on the company APX: did CCAR’s “web-based platform and account management tool for the registration, serialization, tracking, and retirement of GHG offsets for the Climate Action Reserve”. Did work in renew NRG mkts, Gold Standard VER registry. Based in Santa Clara, CA with brand-new office in DC (to get cozy with CC legislation). 2 key leaders from Marsh, Inc. (global risk mngt & insur). Goldman Sachs is a minority equity investor.
- Certif – SFI has web-based survey to collect/compile suggestions/rationale for changes to SFI standard
Showing posts with label conference summary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conference summary. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Summary of 2008 Private Katoomba Meeting on the Chesapeake Bay, June 11-12
Update (7/23): Environmental Marketplace posted presentations from this meeting here.
2008 Private Katoomba Meeting on the Chesapeake: How to Design and Implement Market Mechanisms to Improve Water Quality Throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
(courtesy of Al Todd, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry)
Building from the market-oriented thremes from the public Katoomba sessions in DC, the goal of this meeting was to catalyze new thinking around a suite of market-based tools that could build additional funding streams to achieve and maintain pollution reduction goals across the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Meeting Objectives:
1. To learn about and discuss lessons learned from both compliant and voluntary market approached to environmental quality;
2. To discuss obstacles and opportunities for applying these approaches to a robust voluntary market for water quality in the Bay watershed;
3. To draft a plan of action and next steps for implementing select market-based tools, including a Chesapeake Clean Water Fund to address water quality in the Bay watershed. The Fund will leverage private dollars to invest in high-impact projects, those in areas that have the highest pollution loads throughout the watershed.
Day One: Overview and Stage Setting
Michael Jenkins, Forest Trends gave the welcome and set the context for the Discussions.
William C. Baker, Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Gave a state of water quality in the Bay. A brief and fast reality check on the history of WQ improvement efforts including dollars invested, legal authority and the need for better coordination and integration of existing regulatory mechanisms, political will, the need for a coordinated communication/outreach strategy across the Bay watershed, WQ standards and the need for new and sustainable funding sources and the role of private investment. Why market-based approaches in the Bay and why now? Said we know what to do but need the funding to do it.
Ricardo Bayon, EKO Asset Management Partners . gave an overview of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Markets and Market-like Instruments: Utilizing the market to affect positive outcomes. Defining and categorizing market-based activities in a water context and the components that make them work (supply and demand).
Dan Nees, World Resources Institute provided a sobering look at the State of Water-Quality Cap & Trade Programs in the Bay Watershed, WRI has completed a summary of Trading Programs highlighting the activities in the Bay region (MD, VA, PA). Dan is currently pessimistic that the demand drivers (regulatory) are not in place to drive the market. The 2010 TMDL may advance this. Key issue: How to mainstream the value and cost associated with establishing market mechanisms such as a voluntary water market in the Bay? How to link market-based approaches to existing regulatory programs?
Panel Discussion : Market Architecture and Design
Standards, certification, registries, exchanges, aggregators: Components of environmental/water markets in the Chesapeake Bay.
• Wetlands Banking Model, Steve Morgan, Wildlands, Inc.
• Credit Aggregators- Peter Hughes, Red Barn Trading
• Insurance Mechanisms, George Kelly-EBX
• The Green Exchange, Evolution Markets (to be confirmed)
• How Federal, State and Local Government can facilitate the design and implementation of these market components, Mindy Selman, WRI
Panel Discussion Building a Market for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed -- Generating Private Investment: New Ideas for Using Market-based Approaches to Improve Water Quality.
• Chesapeake Clean Water Fund (Ricardo Bayon)
• Supplier Certification Program (Tom Simpson)
• Eco Branding – the case of Organic Milk (Suzy Friedman)
• The Bay Bank initiative (Eric Sprague)
• Credit Insurance Programs (George Kelly)
This Panel set the stage for the second day’s discussions.
Day Two: Moving Forward in the Bay
Focus for Day 2 was on developing a road map and building consensus on specific pilots for the Bay. Focusing on the 5 initiatives outlined on the previous day, groups were to acknowledge how they would contribute to improved water quality in the Bay watershed and how they could relate to one another.
Small Group Activity: Participants were broken up into small groups for this task. Each was assigned one of the 5 initiatives and asked to discuss it and then propose a conceptual business plan for a functioning market-based scheme focused on improving water quality across the Bay. Each group should prepare a detailed 5 minute sales pitch, as if pitching the idea to venture capital (VC) investors. Each group selected a spokesperson to make the pitch to the entire group in the afternoon.
Menu of Initiatives:
The Chesapeake Clean Water Fund; Market-driven Supplier Certification Program; The Bay Bank Initiative; Credit Insurance Programs; Eco Branding
Small Group Report Out and Large Group Discussion of Proposals (Group presentation: 5 minutes followed by 10 questions/answers) An interesting aspect of this exercise was that the membership of the breakout groups was purposely designed such that none of the proponents or partners in a specific initiative were in that Breakout Group. All the groups had to go on was the presentation from Day 1 and a conceptual project brief.
Key outcomes:
1) Eco branding: A good concept but quite time and $ intensive to launch and maintain. Examples were provided that would work for eco-friendly lawn care and milk production.
2) Supplier Certification Program: This is a project that has been funded and will be progressing and deals with food supply chain certification of water quality practices. Has potential to reduce nutrient use and change behavior of ag producers through demand from processors and food producers. Agreements in place to begin with several major local food producers. Will proceed on a separate track.
3) Chesapeake Clean Water Fund: Seen as a good idea to catalyze a voluntary nutrient investment fund. Credits would be established and through increased credit valuation, funds could be reinvested in restoration projects and N reduction BMPs. Would focus on the demand side of the market and work to get several major corporate contributions (with a target of $5 million in 2 years) as seed for fund. Would eventually be able to sell high quality certified nutrient credits.
4) The Bay Bank: Seen as a great counterpoint to the Fund discussed above because it would focus primarily on the supply side of the market, educating landowners and facilitating their access to multiple markets including the “Fund”.
5) Credit Insurance: Seen as a valuable addition to both the bay bank and the Clean Water Fund. Several people in the meeting volunteered to work on this concept including reps from both the Bay bank and the Fund. It would serve as a bridging function to help reduce risk for other aggregators. WRI will take the lead.
Conclusion
Forest Trends will continue to track activities in the Bay Watershed on its web site and through the creation of an online Water Market Forum. Reps from the Bay Bank and the Clean Water Fund will convene to ensure that there is a high level of integration as these two go forward. These latter four projects are seen as the nucleus of a Chesapeake Bay water quality markets work plan.
2008 Private Katoomba Meeting on the Chesapeake: How to Design and Implement Market Mechanisms to Improve Water Quality Throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
(courtesy of Al Todd, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry)
Building from the market-oriented thremes from the public Katoomba sessions in DC, the goal of this meeting was to catalyze new thinking around a suite of market-based tools that could build additional funding streams to achieve and maintain pollution reduction goals across the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Meeting Objectives:
1. To learn about and discuss lessons learned from both compliant and voluntary market approached to environmental quality;
2. To discuss obstacles and opportunities for applying these approaches to a robust voluntary market for water quality in the Bay watershed;
3. To draft a plan of action and next steps for implementing select market-based tools, including a Chesapeake Clean Water Fund to address water quality in the Bay watershed. The Fund will leverage private dollars to invest in high-impact projects, those in areas that have the highest pollution loads throughout the watershed.
Day One: Overview and Stage Setting
Michael Jenkins, Forest Trends gave the welcome and set the context for the Discussions.
William C. Baker, Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Gave a state of water quality in the Bay. A brief and fast reality check on the history of WQ improvement efforts including dollars invested, legal authority and the need for better coordination and integration of existing regulatory mechanisms, political will, the need for a coordinated communication/outreach strategy across the Bay watershed, WQ standards and the need for new and sustainable funding sources and the role of private investment. Why market-based approaches in the Bay and why now? Said we know what to do but need the funding to do it.
Ricardo Bayon, EKO Asset Management Partners . gave an overview of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Markets and Market-like Instruments: Utilizing the market to affect positive outcomes. Defining and categorizing market-based activities in a water context and the components that make them work (supply and demand).
Dan Nees, World Resources Institute provided a sobering look at the State of Water-Quality Cap & Trade Programs in the Bay Watershed, WRI has completed a summary of Trading Programs highlighting the activities in the Bay region (MD, VA, PA). Dan is currently pessimistic that the demand drivers (regulatory) are not in place to drive the market. The 2010 TMDL may advance this. Key issue: How to mainstream the value and cost associated with establishing market mechanisms such as a voluntary water market in the Bay? How to link market-based approaches to existing regulatory programs?
Panel Discussion : Market Architecture and Design
Standards, certification, registries, exchanges, aggregators: Components of environmental/water markets in the Chesapeake Bay.
• Wetlands Banking Model, Steve Morgan, Wildlands, Inc.
• Credit Aggregators- Peter Hughes, Red Barn Trading
• Insurance Mechanisms, George Kelly-EBX
• The Green Exchange, Evolution Markets (to be confirmed)
• How Federal, State and Local Government can facilitate the design and implementation of these market components, Mindy Selman, WRI
Panel Discussion Building a Market for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed -- Generating Private Investment: New Ideas for Using Market-based Approaches to Improve Water Quality.
• Chesapeake Clean Water Fund (Ricardo Bayon)
• Supplier Certification Program (Tom Simpson)
• Eco Branding – the case of Organic Milk (Suzy Friedman)
• The Bay Bank initiative (Eric Sprague)
• Credit Insurance Programs (George Kelly)
This Panel set the stage for the second day’s discussions.
Day Two: Moving Forward in the Bay
Focus for Day 2 was on developing a road map and building consensus on specific pilots for the Bay. Focusing on the 5 initiatives outlined on the previous day, groups were to acknowledge how they would contribute to improved water quality in the Bay watershed and how they could relate to one another.
Small Group Activity: Participants were broken up into small groups for this task. Each was assigned one of the 5 initiatives and asked to discuss it and then propose a conceptual business plan for a functioning market-based scheme focused on improving water quality across the Bay. Each group should prepare a detailed 5 minute sales pitch, as if pitching the idea to venture capital (VC) investors. Each group selected a spokesperson to make the pitch to the entire group in the afternoon.
Menu of Initiatives:
The Chesapeake Clean Water Fund; Market-driven Supplier Certification Program; The Bay Bank Initiative; Credit Insurance Programs; Eco Branding
Small Group Report Out and Large Group Discussion of Proposals (Group presentation: 5 minutes followed by 10 questions/answers) An interesting aspect of this exercise was that the membership of the breakout groups was purposely designed such that none of the proponents or partners in a specific initiative were in that Breakout Group. All the groups had to go on was the presentation from Day 1 and a conceptual project brief.
Key outcomes:
1) Eco branding: A good concept but quite time and $ intensive to launch and maintain. Examples were provided that would work for eco-friendly lawn care and milk production.
2) Supplier Certification Program: This is a project that has been funded and will be progressing and deals with food supply chain certification of water quality practices. Has potential to reduce nutrient use and change behavior of ag producers through demand from processors and food producers. Agreements in place to begin with several major local food producers. Will proceed on a separate track.
3) Chesapeake Clean Water Fund: Seen as a good idea to catalyze a voluntary nutrient investment fund. Credits would be established and through increased credit valuation, funds could be reinvested in restoration projects and N reduction BMPs. Would focus on the demand side of the market and work to get several major corporate contributions (with a target of $5 million in 2 years) as seed for fund. Would eventually be able to sell high quality certified nutrient credits.
4) The Bay Bank: Seen as a great counterpoint to the Fund discussed above because it would focus primarily on the supply side of the market, educating landowners and facilitating their access to multiple markets including the “Fund”.
5) Credit Insurance: Seen as a valuable addition to both the bay bank and the Clean Water Fund. Several people in the meeting volunteered to work on this concept including reps from both the Bay bank and the Fund. It would serve as a bridging function to help reduce risk for other aggregators. WRI will take the lead.
Conclusion
Forest Trends will continue to track activities in the Bay Watershed on its web site and through the creation of an online Water Market Forum. Reps from the Bay Bank and the Clean Water Fund will convene to ensure that there is a high level of integration as these two go forward. These latter four projects are seen as the nucleus of a Chesapeake Bay water quality markets work plan.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Daily Summary: 2008 Global Katoomba Meeting, June 10, 2008.
Summaries, comments, and reactions from day 2 of the 2008 Global Katoomba Meeting: Developing an Infrastructure Fund for the Planet. For day 1 summaries, see post below.
Opening Keynote
Governor Blairo Maggi (Governor, Brazilian state of Mato Grosso) – 60%+ of state is preserved, but state still gets criticized for economic activity. Have program to encourage switching cattle production (req lots land) to food production – switch 10% each year. Rural Property Licensing System - interesting eye-in-the-sky online GIS-based monitoring of preservation areas with program that recognizes & checks for land use change yearly and can send automatic fines (…like a red-light ticket system?). Can require mitigation for deforestation from cattle producers. 1st state in Brazil doing this – intend to replicate in other states. Transparency: anyone can use the system. Mentioned tracking env liabilities city by city and finding env compensation using this system.
Future of Carbon Markets Panel
Carter Bales (The Wicks Group, McKinsey & Co) – forecasting a $2-3 bill C compliance mkt (excluding the US).
William Boyd (Covington & Burling LLP) – talking about recently defeated CC/C cap policy. Big issues: jobs (economic dislocation), cost control (big disconnect betw 2 sides of the debate). If can’t get Senate to pass domestic legislation, won’t pass international treaty.
Jack Gibbs (Prince’s Rainforest Project) – C mkt won’t bring a lot of $ to forests… yet. EU is negotiating phase III of trading system – forestry is excluded. Possible that phase III’s permit auction revenue may go to internat forestry activities.
Beatrice Ahimbisibwe (Ugandan farmer) – C mkts are imp to women in dev countries. Her groups’ tree planting project (vol C mkt) brings income stream and other benefits (future harvests seen as pension fund, land has gained value, helps soil erosion on steep slopes, fruit and medicinal bark, etc.). Hope that incr supply of trees will reduce illegal logging in nearby protected area.
Charlotte Streck (Climate Focus, World Bank) – EU – not a fan of forestry involvement in C mkts.
Q & A’s
Idea of a climate trust model was discussed – similar model to AK citizens receiving dividends from oil royalties.
Q: Influence of RGGI on national/internat C mkt? A: not sure what leakage might be, but it’s a “courageous and positive experiment”
Q: Imple auction to direct revenues to poor comm?
A: Jobs issue needs to be addressed.
Q: Bundling - when you commoditize one service you run the risk of ignoring other values that an ecosystem offers. How can we scale up to include multiple values?
Biodiversity Markets Breakout Session
Yusuf Ole Petenya Shani (Shompole Community Trust, Kenya) – his community (Masai) decided to set aside part of their land as preserve, charge visitors an entry fee, and started a high-end eco-lodge [comment: I looked at their website – swanky!]. Other lodge experience in Kenya can have “20 minivans around one cheetah”, but the community is able to maintain quality wildlife habitat & experience by limiting # of visitors (& charging more). Philosophy on PES – need to be benefits for the present as well as the future, or project will not take off. Challenges: gov understanding of PES; integrating women into PES projects.
Alvaro Umana (former Minister Nat Resources & Energy, Costa Rica; now IMF) – remarked on previous quote – valuing forests for their C content is like valuing computer chips for their silicon content. 2nd generation model of PES in Costa Rica is coming w/ differential payments for higher biodiversity (also challenging to implement).
Steve Morgan (Wildlands, Inc.) – drivers for their business: Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act. Biggest challenge: limitation of market area (to a watershed, a subpopulation of species, etc.). Their demand driver is growth and encroachment on wetlands/habitat. When regulators’ budgets are stretched thin, plans for restor/mitigation aren’t reviewed quickly.
Sachin Kapila (Shell) – switching perspective towards biodiversity as opportunity. Without clear regulation, cannot analyze opportunity.
Kerry ten Kate (Forest Trends) – explained resource markets as traditional markets (ag, forestry products, etc.) and “funky markets” (bio-prospecting, regulatory and voluntary biodiversity mkts). Total trade in funky markets – $1.5 Bill/yr (mostly in US). Business & Biodiversity Offsets Program - businesses to voluntarily achieve no net loss in biodiv (by avoiding, minimizing, mitigating). Incentive for partic: building trust, getting next license more easily, see regulation coming soon. Looking to future of biodiversity mkts… marry offsets to land use planning (the avoid part of the equation), biodiv mkt dating service to match projects to investors/those who need offsets.
Q & A’s
Q: in dev countries with resource extraction & no/v. little offsets – how get companies to offset? A: one difficulty is how to quantify the offset & locate it – Need Clear Metrics for biodiversity. A#2: “No one will write a check that you don’t have to write”. A#3: need level playing field. A#4: we need to stop this race to the bottom in developing countries.
Q re: how (Masai) community decides to set aside land; are there titles; etc. A: distrust titles (“land grab-iosis”), but community agreed to boundary – if start encroaching, go back to that agreed-upon boundary.
Q: how tease out credits of bundled services? A: we have a diversity of opp of credits to sell.
Carbon Markets Breakout Session
…coming soon.
Water Markets Breakout Session
Bettina von Hagen, VP, Ecotrust: WQT markets are unique bc they exist w/out heavy regulation - local incentives for improving WQ.
Ben Grumbles, Assistant Admin for Water, EPA: "Think globally, drink locally." Greatest concern nutrients and dead zones ($4.2 billion in grants for Miss. River basin - go get 'em!) In case you weren't sure how to describe wetlands, they are "nature's kidneys."
Marta Echavirria, Founder, Ecodecision, Ecuador: "Market" hard to convey in Latin culture but WQ is being funded by user fees, aka. "Watershed Protection User Fees", which has raised over $5mil. Working on bundling project with Forest Trends.
Mark Keiser, Sr. Scientist and Principal, Keiser & Associates: TMDL driver for WQT markets. The Miss. River basin is best chance at developing intersate market; no states in the basin have developed WQT standards. Advocate for simple rules - notes less participation in areas where rules are complex, increases transaction cost. If credit isn't credible, nobody will buy.
Richard Coombe, Regional Chief, NRCS: Catskill Plan worked because small farmers were engaged; small percent of population but own 85% of land. Eco-labeling from Catskills another way to increase profits from improved land practices.
Joe Rozza, Water Risk Mgr, Coca-Cola: "Water neutrality" - return same quantity of water as used in plants. Coca-Cola is looking at WQ in products and watersheds of customers. Interesting note - use 'risk' as means to justify environmental programs to companies, instead of financial incentives.
Will Baker, President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation: Advocates regulation and market approaches must come together. "When know what needs to be done, down to the P and N limits of subbasins; we just need the funding to do it."
Q&As:
How do address different methods and interpretations?
Ben: Flexibility with accountability; provide incentives to encourage mkt; need greater
ability to measure non pt. sources; and move states to numeric P and N goals.
There seems to be two subsets/kinds of markets, financial decision (aka. Catskill) and CSR (Coca-Cola) - how do you connect the two?
Marta: No, we need to integrate all players for markets to be successful.
Richard: They will meld together b/c water is so critical.
Hypothetical - Lake Meade is dry - Where do you start?
Ben: By 2011, most west states will experience extreme shortages. Need to advocate now: sustainable ag, Smart growth and efficiency. Wetland mitigation is an important tool.
Building Bridges Session
Public lands might serve as a future insurance mechanism for ecosystem services markets.
Senator John Kerry Keynote
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) – Inconvenient Truth part III: Return of the Politicians. A rousing speech in a room full of nodding heads (as in nodding in agreement).
An Infrastructure Fund for the Planet Panel
Moderator Alvaro Umana former Minister Nat Resources & Energy, Costa Rica; now IMF) – mentioned a new article in Science [?] proposing an atmospheric trust fund from a % of revenues from auctions of permits under a global cap & trade.
Colin le Duc (Generation Investment Management) – investment in forestry attractive (inflation hedge, tax benefits, etc.). Potential in wetland and ecosystem mitigation but has scalability issues. Mapping/monitoring services will be increasing in importance. Biomass conversion also a hot area.
Larry Linden (Linden Trust for Conservation)
…coming soon.
Larry Schweiger (National Wildlife Federation)
…coming soon.
David Brand (New Forests)
…coming soon.
John Mason (Nature Conservation Research Center, Ghana) – there’s a need to communicate with local stakeholders and recognize the unique challenges they face.
Closing Keynote
Steve McCormick (Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, former CEO of TNC) – discussed broad eras of conservation history: preservation/protection/parks, conservation recognizing the landscape (outside park boundaries), conservation in harmony with people. Suggested new trend in conservation sparked by decision on Millenium Ecosystem Services Assessment to consider the dependence of humans on ecosystem services. Now perhaps the era is on conserving nature for services with human well-being in mind. We are at the “frontier of the imagination”.
Closing Remarks
Michael Jenkins (Forest Trends) and Cristian Samper (Smithsonian Institute) – some themes revisited during the conference: monitoring, baselines & data. Take-home: stories about env markets contributing to livelihoods in developing countries should motivate us.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Daily Summary: 2008 Global Katoomba Meeting, June 9, 2008.
Today and tomorrow environmentalmarkets authors will post summaries, comments, and reactions from the 2008 Global Katoomba Meeting: Developing an Infrastructure Fund for the Planet.
Opening Keynote
John Holdren (Woods Hole, Harvard) - Inconvenient Truth part 2: return of the graphs. Climate change science rundown. Choices for dealing with it: mitigation, adaptation, and my favorite... suffering.
Q & A's
Good metaphor for importance of biodiversity: taking out the rivets on a plane b/c it's free to do so and we don't really know how many we need. Metaphor 2: library.
Re: involvement of indigenous communities... some of the key q's addressed in Bali re: REDD were: can you monitor, how do you compensate, and can you engage indigenous population?
Panel on State of Affairs
Ken Newcombe (Goldman Sachs) - insight to the history of the C market. The 1st C market is an ex of a market catalyzed by an institution, and overtaken by private investment within 1 year. Hope that REDD can start in vol mkt while figuring out baselines. Alluded to an emerging mkt for adaptation - encouraging invest in sust landuse practices like soil C and WL conservation. Ecosystem services are at the nexus between the env, social dev, ag & infra.
Katie McGinty (PA Dept of Env Protection) - Millennium Ecosystem Assessm highlighted WQ as most urgent env problem (over CC). Insight into PA WQT. Environmental imperative for the market - alternative is pouring concrete/grey infrastructure solutions and chemical treatment (aka “call the engineers”). Env skepticism of markets - healthy when a check/balance leading to better design of the mkt, not so good when get "death by discounts" – “slice & dice” of pounds of reduction from edge of field-> stream ratio, stream-> mouth of Ches Bay ratio; reserve ratio; etc. Just say no when trading is proposed when it doesn't belong.
Stuart Anstee (Rio Tinto) – Mining companies own a lot of land that they’re not working on – normally see this as a liability. When impacting biodiversity, consider this a business risk/cost. Switch perspective to opp for mitigation of impacts on their land. Create positive env results from restor/rehabilitation & potentially get income stream. Builds trust with regulators.
Odigha Odigha (NGO Coalition for the Environment) – founder of a Nigerian NGO that works at the local level challenged audience to take the discussion about PES to the community level in developing countries – to where income streams for creation of env benefits is important.
Jonathan Lash (WRI) – stressed importance of “rules of the game”. Stressed viewing markets as a means to getting desired environmental outcomes (questioned the crowd [Who’s here to make markets work?] & no hands went up). The mechanism for creating value in ecosystem services is a regulatory framework. Legitimacy, predictability, transparency important in env markets.
Q & A’s
Re: viability of markets for fisheries—yes, where possible to define & limit access & rights to access can be sold. Politically difficult to limit access.
The Coastal Zone Mngt Act needs to be updated, so why not create a regulatory mechanism to limit access & require offset responsibilities.
Re: market barriers for poor/small landowners b/c of “death by standards & consulting costs”—ex given where markets accessible for areas in extreme poverty – buying C credits [voluntary] from women tree-growers in developing countries. Works in vol market, but compliance markets still buying as commodity, so buying for lowest cost. When commoditize C, you exclude other attributes – issue of quantity vs. quality. Landowners need advanced payments to imple projects. Small parcels are a problem.
Closing Key Note
Kathy Sierra (World Bank) – gave an overview of World Bank involvement in C [& other?] env markets. Anyone have points to add re: this presentation?
Closing Dialogue
Michael Jenkins (Forest Trends) & Cristian Samper (Smithsonian Institution) - Scale, scope, and pace of change are important in development of env markets. Pace—institutions do not move quickly, but must learn to be nimble if want to affect the way markets develop. In developing countries, the institutional capacity to use/enforce standards is weak.
Friday, May 16, 2008
News Summary for 5/3-5/16
Meetings / Seminars
- 5/7-9 - 11th Annual National Mitigation & Ecosystem Banking Conference – day summaries for May 9th, May 8th, and May 7th
Projects
- Mapping – National Geographic/NatureServe’s LandScope, to be launched 2008, brings maps/data/photos/info about conserved/priority cons/planning areas, trends, etc. for US/states together to inform/target efforts on the part of land trusts/st & local gov/private landowners/etc.
- Mapping – Trust for Public Land launches Conservation Almanac--lists data (1998-2005) about conserved areas in each st, acres acquired, $s spent, LandVote ballot measures, profile of state policy/conserv programs. Helpful for st/regional cons stats.
- Markets – AgTrader, a Craig’s List for MD farmers launched
News
- CC – US FWS lists Polar Bear as threatened due to loss of habitat (sea ice), says won’t use listing to force regulatory action
- All things C – Ecosystem Marketplace’s V-Carbon Mail (5/2/08)
---CCAR launches Climate Action Reserve that provides standardized protocols for C projects, info on projects, and tracks credits.
---Bush - proposal of zero emissions growth by 2025
---Canada and Greece out of compliance w/Kyoto can’t trade in EU C market until they get their act together
---Sir Nicholas Stern (of Stern report fame in ’07) says he goofed and to minimize dangerous risks of CC, need to reduce emiss by 50% for world and 90% for US
- C - Ecosys M’place releases 2007 State of the Voluntary C Market. Interesting stats:
---65 mill tonnes of C credit transactions in vol mkt [42mill from OTC mkt, 23 from CCX transactions]
---ave pr of credit went from $4.10->$6.10/tonne from 06 to 07
---OTC mkt tripled to 42 mill tonnes C credit transactions (val of $258mill in 07)
---dominant projects in OTC: NRG efficiency, renew NRG, methane, forestry/land projects
- WQT – summary of MD’s newish (4/18/2008) PT-PT trading policy
- Leadership – TNC appoints Goldman Sachs’ green guru Mark Tercek as new president/CEO
- PES - Special Issue on PES in Developing and Developed Countries – May 2008 Ecological Economics, 65.4. Sven Wunder, Stefanie Engel and Stefano Pagiola (ed).
- Nonmarket val – UFORE analysis of Houston’s regional forests: store $721mill worth of C, gen $456mill of env bene/yr, save $131mill in res NRG costs.
- Nonmarket val – WSJ Natural Cap blog discusses bene-cost analysis for env policy; crux of debate – whether economists value future generations’ benefits enough (via disc rates)
- 5/7-9 - 11th Annual National Mitigation & Ecosystem Banking Conference – day summaries for May 9th, May 8th, and May 7th
Projects
- Mapping – National Geographic/NatureServe’s LandScope, to be launched 2008, brings maps/data/photos/info about conserved/priority cons/planning areas, trends, etc. for US/states together to inform/target efforts on the part of land trusts/st & local gov/private landowners/etc.
- Mapping – Trust for Public Land launches Conservation Almanac--lists data (1998-2005) about conserved areas in each st, acres acquired, $s spent, LandVote ballot measures, profile of state policy/conserv programs. Helpful for st/regional cons stats.
- Markets – AgTrader, a Craig’s List for MD farmers launched
News
- CC – US FWS lists Polar Bear as threatened due to loss of habitat (sea ice), says won’t use listing to force regulatory action
- All things C – Ecosystem Marketplace’s V-Carbon Mail (5/2/08)
---CCAR launches Climate Action Reserve that provides standardized protocols for C projects, info on projects, and tracks credits.
---Bush - proposal of zero emissions growth by 2025
---Canada and Greece out of compliance w/Kyoto can’t trade in EU C market until they get their act together
---Sir Nicholas Stern (of Stern report fame in ’07) says he goofed and to minimize dangerous risks of CC, need to reduce emiss by 50% for world and 90% for US
- C - Ecosys M’place releases 2007 State of the Voluntary C Market. Interesting stats:
---65 mill tonnes of C credit transactions in vol mkt [42mill from OTC mkt, 23 from CCX transactions]
---ave pr of credit went from $4.10->$6.10/tonne from 06 to 07
---OTC mkt tripled to 42 mill tonnes C credit transactions (val of $258mill in 07)
---dominant projects in OTC: NRG efficiency, renew NRG, methane, forestry/land projects
- WQT – summary of MD’s newish (4/18/2008) PT-PT trading policy
- Leadership – TNC appoints Goldman Sachs’ green guru Mark Tercek as new president/CEO
- PES - Special Issue on PES in Developing and Developed Countries – May 2008 Ecological Economics, 65.4. Sven Wunder, Stefanie Engel and Stefano Pagiola (ed).
- Nonmarket val – UFORE analysis of Houston’s regional forests: store $721mill worth of C, gen $456mill of env bene/yr, save $131mill in res NRG costs.
- Nonmarket val – WSJ Natural Cap blog discusses bene-cost analysis for env policy; crux of debate – whether economists value future generations’ benefits enough (via disc rates)
Monday, May 12, 2008
Notes from the field: 11th Annual National Mitigation and Ecosystem Banking Conference, May 9, 2008
McGeorge Group Breakfast Session
Panel: Mark Sudol (ACOE), Craig Denisoff (Westervelt), Deblyn Mead (USFWS), Michael Bean (EDF).
Some notes: Banking industry has concern of in-lieu fees that are held by groups with a vested interest in keeping the $, but not a concern with in-lieu held by an agency directed to purchase the miti. Prior to 4 yrs ago, didn’t require no net loss of streams, but now, yes (if meets jurisdictional def). ACOE HQ has 6 employees (!). Proactive conservation banking – yes it’s possible, but no practical demand for it w/o regulatory handle—could be an opp to change law to create incentives to help species before they’re listed.
Technology & Tracking Session
Interesting ACOE Ecologist mapping project to identify key lands for WL mitigation from banker perspective (cheap land), ecological/regulators’ perspective. Regional FL interactive mitigation banking website – staff enter info in sys and is immediately avail online – similar to RIBITS.
Update from ACOE on RIBITS & ORM database (?). Basically, all ACOE districts are for the 1st time all using the same database mngt sys. Will be linking database to RIBITS (currently only avail in Norfolk & Mobile districts). ACOE has MOA w/ EPA, USFWS to link conservation banking to RIBITS.
Integrating Banking into Resource Planning Session
Department of Defense interested in doing mitigation offsite; has legal authority to buy credits in WL bank or to pay in-lieu fees; has Legacy Program – env grants to [buy land or easements?] to support mil readiness. DoD has contract with LMI to ID viable offsite mitigation in base buffer areas in a project in the Ches Bay. The 2 pot projects ID’d are related to nutrients/WQT: WWTP in FT AP Hill buys WQ credits; WWTP on base convinces adjacent landowners to do WQ BMPs, then base buys conservation easement & WQ gets credits (?).
EPA’s Green Infrastructure approach can help bankers with the watershed approach req by new Rules b/c GI ID’s priority cons areas. DOT did big grant to use GI to see pot conflict/ID miti opportunities on their projects.
Highlights from Q & A’s from the Day
Q: If Rappahanos final decision says have to mitigate for ditches, could we dig another ditch that has the same function?
A: In Supreme Court discussion, Scalia says a ditch is jurisdictional, so yes.
Q: Does RIBITS allow you to find onsite mitigation projects?
A: No. Audience member suggested that searching for conservation easement database could help.
Q: Regarding military knowledge of mitigation banking…
A: Military knows about, & is extremely interested in mitigation. Presenter saw a recent research paper that suggested the mil would be the largest buyer of mitigation (anyone have this source?).
Panel: Mark Sudol (ACOE), Craig Denisoff (Westervelt), Deblyn Mead (USFWS), Michael Bean (EDF).
Some notes: Banking industry has concern of in-lieu fees that are held by groups with a vested interest in keeping the $, but not a concern with in-lieu held by an agency directed to purchase the miti. Prior to 4 yrs ago, didn’t require no net loss of streams, but now, yes (if meets jurisdictional def). ACOE HQ has 6 employees (!). Proactive conservation banking – yes it’s possible, but no practical demand for it w/o regulatory handle—could be an opp to change law to create incentives to help species before they’re listed.
Technology & Tracking Session
Interesting ACOE Ecologist mapping project to identify key lands for WL mitigation from banker perspective (cheap land), ecological/regulators’ perspective. Regional FL interactive mitigation banking website – staff enter info in sys and is immediately avail online – similar to RIBITS.
Update from ACOE on RIBITS & ORM database (?). Basically, all ACOE districts are for the 1st time all using the same database mngt sys. Will be linking database to RIBITS (currently only avail in Norfolk & Mobile districts). ACOE has MOA w/ EPA, USFWS to link conservation banking to RIBITS.
Integrating Banking into Resource Planning Session
Department of Defense interested in doing mitigation offsite; has legal authority to buy credits in WL bank or to pay in-lieu fees; has Legacy Program – env grants to [buy land or easements?] to support mil readiness. DoD has contract with LMI to ID viable offsite mitigation in base buffer areas in a project in the Ches Bay. The 2 pot projects ID’d are related to nutrients/WQT: WWTP in FT AP Hill buys WQ credits; WWTP on base convinces adjacent landowners to do WQ BMPs, then base buys conservation easement & WQ gets credits (?).
EPA’s Green Infrastructure approach can help bankers with the watershed approach req by new Rules b/c GI ID’s priority cons areas. DOT did big grant to use GI to see pot conflict/ID miti opportunities on their projects.
Highlights from Q & A’s from the Day
Q: If Rappahanos final decision says have to mitigate for ditches, could we dig another ditch that has the same function?
A: In Supreme Court discussion, Scalia says a ditch is jurisdictional, so yes.
Q: Does RIBITS allow you to find onsite mitigation projects?
A: No. Audience member suggested that searching for conservation easement database could help.
Q: Regarding military knowledge of mitigation banking…
A: Military knows about, & is extremely interested in mitigation. Presenter saw a recent research paper that suggested the mil would be the largest buyer of mitigation (anyone have this source?).
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Notes from the field: 11th Annual National Mitigation and Ecosystem Banking Conference, May 8, 2008.
Preliminary address highlights
Michael W Sole, FL DEP Sec of the Env – FL’s st legislature working on/passed WQT, cap & trade. FL wants to take a look new Rule – is going to mitigation banks 1st “bridling ourselves”?
Mark Rey, Undersec for Nat Res & Env, USDA – Farm Bill insiders’ view – some of the things the dept wanted (> conservation funding, reforms on commodity/subsidy payments, incr spending by no more $6bill, don’t pay for it with taxes) aren’t what the Senate & House put forth. Pres promises to veto it as is (no reforms, not as much cons funding as would like, paying for it with taxes/”budget gimmickry”). House & Sen conf committee rushing to change it right now. Interesting ecosystem market development: TIMOs/REITs’ interests now diverging with forest products manufacturing industry b/c landowners want to take advantage of selling ecosys services & the forest prod industry thinks this will incr fiber prices.
Ben Grumbles, EPL Asst Admin for Water – the new Rule is a BIG.DEAL. (likens importance to “no net loss”). Why he likes the new rule: advances the *science* of WL/str miti, > consistent/reliable standards, performance-based, market-based. Still maintain importance of avoidance/minimization/no net loss. EPA & COE working on potential legislation to amend CWA re: jurisdiction, & streamlining permitting process, extending general permit (?) from 5 to 10 years.
George Dunlop, Principal Dep. Asst Sec of Army, Civil Works – a real character. WL miti used to be one size fits all, onsite, which “shackled” mitigation banking, this new rule brings an “opportunity concept” to mitigation. Also heard: semi-quote “compensatory mitigation in the 1990s was shackled by a neo-Marxist, neo-pantheistic system” (wha???). Entrepreneurs need & Rule provides: clarity, transparency, consistency, predictability, timeliness. Warns that “skeptics & saboteurs” will counterattack. Likened agencies/bureaucrats to amoebas – wanting to expand control.
Session: Business of Banking, Primer 102
Due diligence in setting up wetland mitigation banks – talked about what WL mitigation bankers think about when considering setting up a bank, including: Demand for credits (users), service area, who’s influential on the interagency review team, development trends in the area, competition, etc.
Financial assurances – a review of the process that mitigation bankers go through to provide required assurances (what’s required is that mitigation is constructed and has met performance standards). Sec 332.3(n) has specifics. Banker finds a Trustee, Trustee uses bonds, escrow/letter of credit, etc. Diff type of assurance situations, but basically the Trustee or bonder will ensure the work gets done if there’s an issue.
Sales & Marketing Strategies – back to basics: used framework of 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Good planning and execution goes a long way in miti banking success.
Lunch Speakers
Mostly reiterating major points of new Rule. Corps/EPA have some training set – at joint May 08 national meeting, and an IRT member training in June 08 with training posted online.
Mitigation Laws and Cases of Interest to the Mitigation Banking Industry: what’s a jurisdictional water & legal tests of most recent guidance… and potential new legislation (Clean Water Restoration Act) to bring the def of jurisdictional waters back to pre-2001. Farm Bill item on tax incentives for conservation banking. Industry concerns re: standards of recovery credit trading. Water Resources Development Act of 2007 – establishes preference for mitigation banks; requires water resources projects (e.g. Corps projects) to meet new Rules [correct me if I’m wrong].
Capital Session
Can anyone out there capture the salient points? (Use comments feature)
Water Quality Trading Session
Overview of basics of water quality trading programs (can find full info in Toolkit for Permit Writers at www.epa.gov/waterqualitytrading). NRCS sees role for itself to help create/standardize models to help determine nutrient credits, reviewed NTT tool (Nitrogen Trading Tool, contact: Shaun McKinney). Overview of PA’s trading program.
Highlights from Q & A’s from the Day
Q: concerning pre-selling credits to a 3rd party (financier) for resale…
A: Banker thinks could be bad idea – creating new competition, but could structure the deal so the original banker retains marketing rights.
Q: Regarding financial assurances…
A: If you can’t work out a solution with the regulator & have to actually use your financial assurances, you’re not building trust with the regulator = bad for your business.
Q: Regulator interested in simplicity in dealing with financial assurances.
A: Banker resists this idea as limits financial opportunities; some states have different financial instruments…
Q: What happens when you want to do a conservation easement but the mineral rights are held separately?
A: Write in a contract a waiver of surface entry but allow access [via directional]…
Q: Regarding long-term management assurances…
A: This issue is huge. Banks give funds to [land trusts, etc] for long term management and might find out that’s not really happening. Suggested requirement for financial plan negotiated between the banker and the manager.
Q: Do gov agencies need financial assurances?
A: Yes, but they can self-insure.
Q: Concern about capital carpetbaggers in env markets…
A: Many of these investors have heart in it, but recognize the fear
Comment: Idea for National Miti Banking Industry to set up a clearinghouse of bankers to help match up funders with bankers.
Michael W Sole, FL DEP Sec of the Env – FL’s st legislature working on/passed WQT, cap & trade. FL wants to take a look new Rule – is going to mitigation banks 1st “bridling ourselves”?
Mark Rey, Undersec for Nat Res & Env, USDA – Farm Bill insiders’ view – some of the things the dept wanted (> conservation funding, reforms on commodity/subsidy payments, incr spending by no more $6bill, don’t pay for it with taxes) aren’t what the Senate & House put forth. Pres promises to veto it as is (no reforms, not as much cons funding as would like, paying for it with taxes/”budget gimmickry”). House & Sen conf committee rushing to change it right now. Interesting ecosystem market development: TIMOs/REITs’ interests now diverging with forest products manufacturing industry b/c landowners want to take advantage of selling ecosys services & the forest prod industry thinks this will incr fiber prices.
Ben Grumbles, EPL Asst Admin for Water – the new Rule is a BIG.DEAL. (likens importance to “no net loss”). Why he likes the new rule: advances the *science* of WL/str miti, > consistent/reliable standards, performance-based, market-based. Still maintain importance of avoidance/minimization/no net loss. EPA & COE working on potential legislation to amend CWA re: jurisdiction, & streamlining permitting process, extending general permit (?) from 5 to 10 years.
George Dunlop, Principal Dep. Asst Sec of Army, Civil Works – a real character. WL miti used to be one size fits all, onsite, which “shackled” mitigation banking, this new rule brings an “opportunity concept” to mitigation. Also heard: semi-quote “compensatory mitigation in the 1990s was shackled by a neo-Marxist, neo-pantheistic system” (wha???). Entrepreneurs need & Rule provides: clarity, transparency, consistency, predictability, timeliness. Warns that “skeptics & saboteurs” will counterattack. Likened agencies/bureaucrats to amoebas – wanting to expand control.
Session: Business of Banking, Primer 102
Due diligence in setting up wetland mitigation banks – talked about what WL mitigation bankers think about when considering setting up a bank, including: Demand for credits (users), service area, who’s influential on the interagency review team, development trends in the area, competition, etc.
Financial assurances – a review of the process that mitigation bankers go through to provide required assurances (what’s required is that mitigation is constructed and has met performance standards). Sec 332.3(n) has specifics. Banker finds a Trustee, Trustee uses bonds, escrow/letter of credit, etc. Diff type of assurance situations, but basically the Trustee or bonder will ensure the work gets done if there’s an issue.
Sales & Marketing Strategies – back to basics: used framework of 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Good planning and execution goes a long way in miti banking success.
Lunch Speakers
Mostly reiterating major points of new Rule. Corps/EPA have some training set – at joint May 08 national meeting, and an IRT member training in June 08 with training posted online.
Mitigation Laws and Cases of Interest to the Mitigation Banking Industry: what’s a jurisdictional water & legal tests of most recent guidance… and potential new legislation (Clean Water Restoration Act) to bring the def of jurisdictional waters back to pre-2001. Farm Bill item on tax incentives for conservation banking. Industry concerns re: standards of recovery credit trading. Water Resources Development Act of 2007 – establishes preference for mitigation banks; requires water resources projects (e.g. Corps projects) to meet new Rules [correct me if I’m wrong].
Capital Session
Can anyone out there capture the salient points? (Use comments feature)
Water Quality Trading Session
Overview of basics of water quality trading programs (can find full info in Toolkit for Permit Writers at www.epa.gov/waterqualitytrading). NRCS sees role for itself to help create/standardize models to help determine nutrient credits, reviewed NTT tool (Nitrogen Trading Tool, contact: Shaun McKinney). Overview of PA’s trading program.
Highlights from Q & A’s from the Day
Q: concerning pre-selling credits to a 3rd party (financier) for resale…
A: Banker thinks could be bad idea – creating new competition, but could structure the deal so the original banker retains marketing rights.
Q: Regarding financial assurances…
A: If you can’t work out a solution with the regulator & have to actually use your financial assurances, you’re not building trust with the regulator = bad for your business.
Q: Regulator interested in simplicity in dealing with financial assurances.
A: Banker resists this idea as limits financial opportunities; some states have different financial instruments…
Q: What happens when you want to do a conservation easement but the mineral rights are held separately?
A: Write in a contract a waiver of surface entry but allow access [via directional]…
Q: Regarding long-term management assurances…
A: This issue is huge. Banks give funds to [land trusts, etc] for long term management and might find out that’s not really happening. Suggested requirement for financial plan negotiated between the banker and the manager.
Q: Do gov agencies need financial assurances?
A: Yes, but they can self-insure.
Q: Concern about capital carpetbaggers in env markets…
A: Many of these investors have heart in it, but recognize the fear
Comment: Idea for National Miti Banking Industry to set up a clearinghouse of bankers to help match up funders with bankers.
Notes from the field: National Mitigation Banking Conference, May 7, 2008.
New Rules – overview of major themes (see New Corps/EPA wetland mitigation regulations).
National Mitigation Banking Association Session – discussion about ensuring that new Rules are implemented & consistently. NMBA will watchdog. NMBA interest in expanding conservation banking beyond CA. NMBA interest in informing other potential legislation affecting the miti industry (conservation banking, WQT, Nat Resources Damage, C issues, stacking).
Highlights from Q & A’s during the Day
Q: Concern voiced over ACOE’s (lack of) motivation to efficiently administer WL miti banking review b/c of lack of OMB performance measures.
A: ACOE has proposed new perf measures to OMB.
Q: Concern voiced that ACOE/EPA staff stretched thin.
A: Acknowledged, trying to make more info avail online (RIBITS) that will increase public info & ensure continuity of records with staff turnover. Also more Interagency Review Team training so members can review efficiently, having the info they need.
Q: Questions regarding stream miti.
A: ACOE *already* requires miti for impacts to streams, Rule doesn’t make this a new thing. Next big step is to develop guidance on quantifying debits for impacts & credits for restoration.
Q: Several questions/discussions regarding stacking
A: ACOE, EPA clear there should be no double-dipping. Comment from audience: USDA Secretary previously announced that farmers who receive $ from Farm Bill programs (CRP, etc.) can also receive payments for ecosystem services. Basic argument for stacking: if an impact is required to mitigate for several diff types of impacts (WL, habitat) on one piece of land, a mitigation site should be able to mitigate for several diff types of impacts. Basic argument against: if it’s acre per acre-type mitigation, you just can’t sell the same acre twice. Concession: if mitigating based on function, and can show/document “uplift”, maybe could stack. Stacking WL and WQ – probably not. If bank were “double-dipping”, ACOE would stop the bank from selling any more credits.
National Mitigation Banking Association Session – discussion about ensuring that new Rules are implemented & consistently. NMBA will watchdog. NMBA interest in expanding conservation banking beyond CA. NMBA interest in informing other potential legislation affecting the miti industry (conservation banking, WQT, Nat Resources Damage, C issues, stacking).
Highlights from Q & A’s during the Day
Q: Concern voiced over ACOE’s (lack of) motivation to efficiently administer WL miti banking review b/c of lack of OMB performance measures.
A: ACOE has proposed new perf measures to OMB.
Q: Concern voiced that ACOE/EPA staff stretched thin.
A: Acknowledged, trying to make more info avail online (RIBITS) that will increase public info & ensure continuity of records with staff turnover. Also more Interagency Review Team training so members can review efficiently, having the info they need.
Q: Questions regarding stream miti.
A: ACOE *already* requires miti for impacts to streams, Rule doesn’t make this a new thing. Next big step is to develop guidance on quantifying debits for impacts & credits for restoration.
Q: Several questions/discussions regarding stacking
A: ACOE, EPA clear there should be no double-dipping. Comment from audience: USDA Secretary previously announced that farmers who receive $ from Farm Bill programs (CRP, etc.) can also receive payments for ecosystem services. Basic argument for stacking: if an impact is required to mitigate for several diff types of impacts (WL, habitat) on one piece of land, a mitigation site should be able to mitigate for several diff types of impacts. Basic argument against: if it’s acre per acre-type mitigation, you just can’t sell the same acre twice. Concession: if mitigating based on function, and can show/document “uplift”, maybe could stack. Stacking WL and WQ – probably not. If bank were “double-dipping”, ACOE would stop the bank from selling any more credits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
